In theory (and I suppose in practice), Keynesian economics would work for a short period of time during a severe time of crisis.

However, the problem with it today and why it's not practical now is that we are in a massive amount of debt. Keynesian theory would work if you are in a little bit of debt or no debt at all to boost the private sector. Due to our debt problem it's not feasible.

At 4/20/2012 8:56:06 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:In theory (and I suppose in practice), Keynesian economics would work for a short period of time during a severe time of crisis.

However, the problem with it today and why it's not practical now is that we are in a massive amount of debt. Keynesian theory would work if you are in a little bit of debt or no debt at all to boost the private sector. Due to our debt problem it's not feasible.

It also assumes that governments will save and cut government programs during booms, and spend during busts. Save and cut government programs during a boom, yea right.

It's a theory that while has good merits, is very difficult to achieve politically and instead give government an excuse to expand.

At 4/20/2012 8:56:06 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:In theory (and I suppose in practice), Keynesian economics would work for a short period of time during a severe time of crisis.

However, the problem with it today and why it's not practical now is that we are in a massive amount of debt. Keynesian theory would work if you are in a little bit of debt or no debt at all to boost the private sector. Due to our debt problem it's not feasible.

I see.

"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"

At 4/20/2012 8:56:06 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:In theory (and I suppose in practice), Keynesian economics would work for a short period of time during a severe time of crisis.

However, the problem with it today and why it's not practical now is that we are in a massive amount of debt. Keynesian theory would work if you are in a little bit of debt or no debt at all to boost the private sector. Due to our debt problem it's not feasible.

It also assumes that governments will save and cut government programs during booms, and spend during busts. Save and cut government programs during a boom, yea right.

It's a theory that while has good merits, is very difficult to achieve politically and instead give government an excuse to expand.

At 4/20/2012 8:56:06 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:In theory (and I suppose in practice), Keynesian economics would work for a short period of time during a severe time of crisis.

However, the problem with it today and why it's not practical now is that we are in a massive amount of debt. Keynesian theory would work if you are in a little bit of debt or no debt at all to boost the private sector. Due to our debt problem it's not feasible.

That's why the Keynesians support higher taxes. Their belief is that government can help the economy.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

At 4/20/2012 8:56:06 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:In theory (and I suppose in practice), Keynesian economics would work for a short period of time during a severe time of crisis.

However, the problem with it today and why it's not practical now is that we are in a massive amount of debt. Keynesian theory would work if you are in a little bit of debt or no debt at all to boost the private sector. Due to our debt problem it's not feasible.

That's why the Keynesians support higher taxes. Their belief is that government can help the economy.

Less money in the economy, yeah that is good for the economy!

Sure they can, but people who make jobs do it better then elected officials.

At 4/20/2012 8:56:06 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:In theory (and I suppose in practice), Keynesian economics would work for a short period of time during a severe time of crisis.

However, the problem with it today and why it's not practical now is that we are in a massive amount of debt. Keynesian theory would work if you are in a little bit of debt or no debt at all to boost the private sector. Due to our debt problem it's not feasible.

That's why the Keynesians support higher taxes. Their belief is that government can help the economy.

Less money in the economy, yeah that is good for the economy!

lol

They believe that high taxes on the wealthy aren't harmful that bad

Sure they can, but people who make jobs do it better then elected officials.

I agree. I believe that government can facilitate prosperity, not create prosperity.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

At 4/20/2012 8:56:06 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:In theory (and I suppose in practice), Keynesian economics would work for a short period of time during a severe time of crisis.

However, the problem with it today and why it's not practical now is that we are in a massive amount of debt. Keynesian theory would work if you are in a little bit of debt or no debt at all to boost the private sector. Due to our debt problem it's not feasible.

That's why the Keynesians support higher taxes. Their belief is that government can help the economy.

Less money in the economy, yeah that is good for the economy!

lol

They believe that high taxes on the wealthy aren't harmful that bad

Sure they can, but people who make jobs do it better then elected officials.

I agree. I believe that government can facilitate prosperity, not create prosperity.

Keynesian do not favor increasing taxes. Lol, increasing government spending but raising taxes at the same time kind of destroys the whole purpose of the multiplier effect. In fact if marginal propensity to consume times the original output is greater then 1, then raising taxes will be bad.

At 4/20/2012 8:56:06 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:In theory (and I suppose in practice), Keynesian economics would work for a short period of time during a severe time of crisis.

However, the problem with it today and why it's not practical now is that we are in a massive amount of debt. Keynesian theory would work if you are in a little bit of debt or no debt at all to boost the private sector. Due to our debt problem it's not feasible.

That's why the Keynesians support higher taxes. Their belief is that government can help the economy.

Less money in the economy, yeah that is good for the economy!

lol

They believe that high taxes on the wealthy aren't harmful that bad

Sure they can, but people who make jobs do it better then elected officials.

I agree. I believe that government can facilitate prosperity, not create prosperity.

Keynesian do not favor increasing taxes. Lol, increasing government spending but raising taxes at the same time kind of destroys the whole purpose of the multiplier effect. In fact if marginal propensity to consume times the original output is greater then 1, then raising taxes will be bad.

Forget what I said, my bad. There is absolutely no multiplier effect from raising both taxes and government spending proportionally.

At 4/20/2012 8:56:06 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:In theory (and I suppose in practice), Keynesian economics would work for a short period of time during a severe time of crisis.

However, the problem with it today and why it's not practical now is that we are in a massive amount of debt. Keynesian theory would work if you are in a little bit of debt or no debt at all to boost the private sector. Due to our debt problem it's not feasible.

That's why the Keynesians support higher taxes. Their belief is that government can help the economy.

Less money in the economy, yeah that is good for the economy!

lol

They believe that high taxes on the wealthy aren't harmful that bad

Oh so raising costs on job creation is good?

Sure they can, but people who make jobs do it better then elected officials.

I agree. I believe that government can facilitate prosperity, not create prosperity.

So a larger government that is in my face trumps private intellect? So their regulations are better for the economy then a smart business owner?Private sector > Public sector

At 4/20/2012 8:56:06 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:In theory (and I suppose in practice), Keynesian economics would work for a short period of time during a severe time of crisis.

However, the problem with it today and why it's not practical now is that we are in a massive amount of debt. Keynesian theory would work if you are in a little bit of debt or no debt at all to boost the private sector. Due to our debt problem it's not feasible.

That's why the Keynesians support higher taxes. Their belief is that government can help the economy.

Less money in the economy, yeah that is good for the economy!

lol

They believe that high taxes on the wealthy aren't harmful that bad

Oh so raising costs on job creation is good?

Nice way to frame it. In return, you oppose a more level playing field and therefore oppose broad prosperity and smart government?

Sure they can, but people who make jobs do it better then elected officials.

I agree. I believe that government can facilitate prosperity, not create prosperity.

So a larger government that is in my face trumps private intellect?

I didn't say that.

So their regulations are better for the economy then a smart business owner?

In some cases, yes. I favor a limited amount of economic regulation. The 40 hour workweek, workers compensation, and preventing discrimination are products of regulation.

Private sector > Public sector

In some areas. Health care = public sector financing, with private delivery. In food, public regulation with private delivery. In education, public, local delivery. In manufacturing, private delivery with minimal public regulation.

As you can tell, I support a role for both sectors in many areas. That is why I support Smart government, where both sectors collaborate together to create prosperity.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

At 4/20/2012 8:56:06 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:In theory (and I suppose in practice), Keynesian economics would work for a short period of time during a severe time of crisis.

However, the problem with it today and why it's not practical now is that we are in a massive amount of debt. Keynesian theory would work if you are in a little bit of debt or no debt at all to boost the private sector. Due to our debt problem it's not feasible.

That's why the Keynesians support higher taxes. Their belief is that government can help the economy.

Less money in the economy, yeah that is good for the economy!

lol

They believe that high taxes on the wealthy aren't harmful that bad

Oh so raising costs on job creation is good?

Nice way to frame it. In return, you oppose a more level playing field and therefore oppose broad prosperity and smart government?

Actually a larger government hurts the playing field, the higher wages outlaw jobs. Why? it is now ILELGAL to pay you under X amount of money, and you are worth Y amount of money, I now cannot hire you legally. So a "level" playing field makes it impossible to even get the the "level" wage.

Sure they can, but people who make jobs do it better then elected officials.

I agree. I believe that government can facilitate prosperity, not create prosperity.

So a larger government that is in my face trumps private intellect?

I didn't say that.

So their regulations are better for the economy then a smart business owner?

In some cases, yes. I favor a limited amount of economic regulation. The 40 hour workweek, workers compensation, and preventing discrimination are products of regulation.

and higher cost the the business man, hence higher prices.

Private sector > Public sector

In some areas. Health care = public sector financing, with private delivery. In food, public regulation with private delivery. In education, public, local delivery. In manufacturing, private delivery with minimal public regulation.

I believe if people choose to eat bad things, let them do it. The private sector is more efficient too.

As you can tell, I support a role for both sectors in many areas. That is why I support Smart government, where both sectors collaborate together to create prosperity.

At 4/20/2012 8:56:06 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:In theory (and I suppose in practice), Keynesian economics would work for a short period of time during a severe time of crisis.

However, the problem with it today and why it's not practical now is that we are in a massive amount of debt. Keynesian theory would work if you are in a little bit of debt or no debt at all to boost the private sector. Due to our debt problem it's not feasible.

That's why the Keynesians support higher taxes. Their belief is that government can help the economy.

Less money in the economy, yeah that is good for the economy!

lol

They believe that high taxes on the wealthy aren't harmful that bad

Oh so raising costs on job creation is good?

Nice way to frame it. In return, you oppose a more level playing field and therefore oppose broad prosperity and smart government?

Actually a larger government hurts the playing field, the higher wages outlaw jobs. Why? it is now ILELGAL to pay you under X amount of money, and you are worth Y amount of money, I now cannot hire you legally. So a "level" playing field makes it impossible to even get the the "level" wage.

It sets a floor on the price of labor. It also helps you support yourself to a minimal degree, which will help you better yourself in life and further your skills.

Sure they can, but people who make jobs do it better then elected officials.

I agree. I believe that government can facilitate prosperity, not create prosperity.

So a larger government that is in my face trumps private intellect?

I didn't say that.

So their regulations are better for the economy then a smart business owner?

In some cases, yes. I favor a limited amount of economic regulation. The 40 hour workweek, workers compensation, and preventing discrimination are products of regulation.

and higher cost the the business man, hence higher prices.

Yes, but we must ask ourselves, what is more important, a 20 cent higher price on our burger at Wendy's and in return we know that in return these employees are not being subjected to inhumane working hours/ conditions, or should we DESERVE those 20 cents for ourselves?

Private sector > Public sector

In some areas. Health care = public sector financing, with private delivery. In food, public regulation with private delivery. In education, public, local delivery. In manufacturing, private delivery with minimal public regulation.

I believe if people choose to eat bad things, let them do it. The private sector is more efficient too.

I am talking about the product. Personal choice is different (which I support). I think that the food industry should be subjected to regulation by the government. In China, some Chinese producers had malamime in the milk and baby formula they were selling. Regulation, when properly used, would prevent this from happening in many cases.

As you can tell, I support a role for both sectors in many areas. That is why I support Smart government, where both sectors collaborate together to create prosperity.

Smart government does not exist.

"We need smart government, a government strategy in which the government and the private sector work together to produce prosperity.

There is simply no evidence that we can succeed in the twenty-first century with an anti-government strategy. It has proved to be good politics but bad policies. Based on a philosophy ground on 'you're on your own' instead of 'we're all in this together'.

The results have yielded high income inequality, a weak economy with not enough jobs, more poverty, and a less competitive position in the world. In the real world, cooperation works better than conflict, and Americans need victories in real life."

- Bill Clinton

An example could be in trade. The US could have free-trade policies to promote and produce more prosperity for America, and in return the Gov't runs job-training programs to help retrain the workers who lost their jobs, and those newly retrained workers can work (ex: biotech) in biotechnology and help American businesses, and help America thrive more.

Another example is with our manufacturing sector, with a National Manufacturing Strategy. The strategy could enforce trade laws, invest in our infrastructure, invest and simplifying job-retraining programs, expand the Research and Development tax credits, enhance our workforce, expand and make permanent clean energy manufacturing tax credits and industrial energy efficiency grants to make America lead in green job creation, and focused tax breaks to companies who use that money to create net new jobs.

Cooperation is better than conflict. And it has been proven. Politics is not a religion. Therefore, we must base policy on the facts, not theology.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

It sets a floor on the price of labor. It also helps you support yourself to a minimal degree, which will help you better yourself in life and further your skills.

A price floor will create a shortage, in other words creating unemployment. Without employment they will not be able to better themselves or further their skills.

"We need smart government, a government strategy in which the government and the private sector work together to produce prosperity.

There is simply no evidence that we can succeed in the twenty-first century with an anti-government strategy. It has proved to be good politics but bad policies. Based on a philosophy ground on 'you're on your own' instead of 'we're all in this together'.

The results have yielded high income inequality, a weak economy with not enough jobs, more poverty, and a less competitive position in the world. In the real world, cooperation works better than conflict, and Americans need victories in real life."

- Bill Clinton

One giant appeal to authority.

An example could be in trade. The US could have free-trade policies to promote and produce more prosperity for America, and in return the Gov't runs job-training programs to help retrain the workers who lost their jobs, and those newly retrained workers can work (ex: biotech) in biotechnology and help American businesses, and help America thrive more.

I've discussed before that these job training programs can all be run by the private sector.

Cooperation is better than conflict.

Not necessary. More competition in the marketplace creates better goods and services.

And it has been proven. Politics is not a religion. Therefore, we must base policy on the facts, not theology.

Politics has a very religious component to it. In that, its really not based on rational discourse but ideology. There's a reason why you don't talk about "politics or religion" in front of others.

In terms of your "fact based policy" how can one even decipher the "facts" from "theology" when pHD economists can not agree with one another?

At 4/20/2012 8:56:06 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:In theory (and I suppose in practice), Keynesian economics would work for a short period of time during a severe time of crisis.

However, the problem with it today and why it's not practical now is that we are in a massive amount of debt. Keynesian theory would work if you are in a little bit of debt or no debt at all to boost the private sector. Due to our debt problem it's not feasible.

That's why the Keynesians support higher taxes. Their belief is that government can help the economy.

Less money in the economy, yeah that is good for the economy!

lol

They believe that high taxes on the wealthy aren't harmful that bad

Oh so raising costs on job creation is good?

Nice way to frame it. In return, you oppose a more level playing field and therefore oppose broad prosperity and smart government?

Actually a larger government hurts the playing field, the higher wages outlaw jobs. Why? it is now ILELGAL to pay you under X amount of money, and you are worth Y amount of money, I now cannot hire you legally. So a "level" playing field makes it impossible to even get the the "level" wage.

It sets a floor on the price of labor. It also helps you support yourself to a minimal degree, which will help you better yourself in life and further your skills.

So how does being jobless increase skills?

Sure they can, but people who make jobs do it better then elected officials.

I agree. I believe that government can facilitate prosperity, not create prosperity.

So a larger government that is in my face trumps private intellect?

I didn't say that.

So their regulations are better for the economy then a smart business owner?

In some cases, yes. I favor a limited amount of economic regulation. The 40 hour workweek, workers compensation, and preventing discrimination are products of regulation.

and higher cost the the business man, hence higher prices.

Yes, but we must ask ourselves, what is more important, a 20 cent higher price on our burger at Wendy's and in return we know that in return these employees are not being subjected to inhumane working hours/ conditions, or should we DESERVE those 20 cents for ourselves?

If people know what is in the burgers, it is their choice to eat it. I could care less, therefore I value personal choice over a nanny state.

Private sector > Public sector

In some areas. Health care = public sector financing, with private delivery. In food, public regulation with private delivery. In education, public, local delivery. In manufacturing, private delivery with minimal public regulation.

I believe if people choose to eat bad things, let them do it. The private sector is more efficient too.

I am talking about the product. Personal choice is different (which I support). I think that the food industry should be subjected to regulation by the government. In China, some Chinese producers had malamime in the milk and baby formula they were selling. Regulation, when properly used, would prevent this from happening in many cases.

I disagree, FDA is unconstitutional.

As you can tell, I support a role for both sectors in many areas. That is why I support Smart government, where both sectors collaborate together to create prosperity.

Smart government does not exist.

"We need smart government, a government strategy in which the government and the private sector work together to produce prosperity.

There is simply no evidence that we can succeed in the twenty-first century with an anti-government strategy. It has proved to be good politics but bad policies. Based on a philosophy ground on 'you're on your own' instead of 'we're all in this together'.

The results have yielded high income inequality, a weak economy with not enough jobs, more poverty, and a less competitive position in the world. In the real world, cooperation works better than conflict, and Americans need victories in real life."

- Bill Clinton

lol, government is not smart.

An example could be in trade. The US could have free-trade policies to promote and produce more prosperity for America, and in return the Gov't runs job-training programs to help retrain the workers who lost their jobs, and those newly retrained workers can work (ex: biotech) in biotechnology and help American businesses, and help America thrive more.

If we had free trade the government would sign nafta or whatever and leave it alone, thats not smart government, they aren't doing anything and the economy is booming.

Another example is with our manufacturing sector, with a National Manufacturing Strategy. The strategy could enforce trade laws, invest in our infrastructure, invest and simplifying job-retraining programs, expand the Research and Development tax credits, enhance our workforce, expand and make permanent clean energy manufacturing tax credits and industrial energy efficiency grants to make America lead in green job creation, and focused tax breaks to companies who use that money to create net new jobs.

Tax breaks is not smart government, it is a conservative one actually doing less, as they have to do less due to the lack of funds.

Cooperation is better than conflict. And it has been proven. Politics is not a religion. Therefore, we must base policy on the facts, not theology.

It sets a floor on the price of labor. It also helps you support yourself to a minimal degree, which will help you better yourself in life and further your skills.

A price floor will create a shortage, in other words creating unemployment. Without employment they will not be able to better themselves or further their skills.

"We need smart government, a government strategy in which the government and the private sector work together to produce prosperity.

There is simply no evidence that we can succeed in the twenty-first century with an anti-government strategy. It has proved to be good politics but bad policies. Based on a philosophy ground on 'you're on your own' instead of 'we're all in this together'.

The results have yielded high income inequality, a weak economy with not enough jobs, more poverty, and a less competitive position in the world. In the real world, cooperation works better than conflict, and Americans need victories in real life."

- Bill Clinton

One giant appeal to authority.

Your point being?

An example could be in trade. The US could have free-trade policies to promote and produce more prosperity for America, and in return the Gov't runs job-training programs to help retrain the workers who lost their jobs, and those newly retrained workers can work (ex: biotech) in biotechnology and help American businesses, and help America thrive more.

I've discussed before that these job training programs can all be run by the private sector.

Exactly how? Why would a private sector job retraining program retrain a worker who is unemployed from the auto company who shut down that factory that he worked at before the free trade agreement? You could say "they will train him and he will pay after he gets the job", but then, you have to acknowledge that the cost of loans are so high, and higher than federal loans.

Cooperation is better than conflict.

Not necessary. More competition in the marketplace creates better goods and services.

True, I mean cooperation between people. We are all in this together, not everybody swims by themselves. A classic liberal/ conservative divide.

And it has been proven. Politics is not a religion. Therefore, we must base policy on the facts, not theology.

Politics has a very religious component to it. In that, its really not based on rational discourse but ideology. There's a reason why you don't talk about "politics or religion" in front of others.

In terms of your "fact based policy" how can one even decipher the "facts" from "theology" when pHD economists can not agree with one another?

I forgot who said this, but some Nobel prize winner said that economics is the only category in which two winners can win a prize for holding opposing viewpoints.

Facts are sometimes evident though. An example could be with subsidies. Does a city that subsidizes corn bread overall do better than a city nearby that doesn't subsidize corn bread?

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

It sets a floor on the price of labor. It also helps you support yourself to a minimal degree, which will help you better yourself in life and further your skills.

A price floor will create a shortage, in other words creating unemployment. Without employment they will not be able to better themselves or further their skills.

"We need smart government, a government strategy in which the government and the private sector work together to produce prosperity.

There is simply no evidence that we can succeed in the twenty-first century with an anti-government strategy. It has proved to be good politics but bad policies. Based on a philosophy ground on 'you're on your own' instead of 'we're all in this together'.

The results have yielded high income inequality, a weak economy with not enough jobs, more poverty, and a less competitive position in the world. In the real world, cooperation works better than conflict, and Americans need victories in real life."

- Bill Clinton

One giant appeal to authority.

Your point being?

facepalm

An example could be in trade. The US could have free-trade policies to promote and produce more prosperity for America, and in return the Gov't runs job-training programs to help retrain the workers who lost their jobs, and those newly retrained workers can work (ex: biotech) in biotechnology and help American businesses, and help America thrive more.

I've discussed before that these job training programs can all be run by the private sector.

Exactly how? Why would a private sector job retraining program retrain a worker who is unemployed from the auto company who shut down that factory that he worked at before the free trade agreement? You could say "they will train him and he will pay after he gets the job", but then, you have to acknowledge that the cost of loans are so high, and higher than federal loans.

Cooperation is better than conflict.

Not necessary. More competition in the marketplace creates better goods and services.

True, I mean cooperation between people. We are all in this together, not everybody swims by themselves. A classic liberal/ conservative divide.

If everyone swims by themselves? No, corporations usually are large masses of people. We think that groups should compete. You are watching michael moore often.

And it has been proven. Politics is not a religion. Therefore, we must base policy on the facts, not theology.

Politics has a very religious component to it. In that, its really not based on rational discourse but ideology. There's a reason why you don't talk about "politics or religion" in front of others.

In terms of your "fact based policy" how can one even decipher the "facts" from "theology" when pHD economists can not agree with one another?

PHD economists pro equal fields *cough krugman*cough*, are weak on econ 101. Also, only one group[s] of PHD economists have good arguments.

I forgot who said this, but some Nobel prize winner said that economics is the only category in which two winners can win a prize for holding opposing viewpoints.

It's true

Facts are sometimes evident though. An example could be with subsidies. Does a city that subsidizes corn bread overall do better than a city nearby that doesn't subsidize corn bread?

At 4/20/2012 8:56:06 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:In theory (and I suppose in practice), Keynesian economics would work for a short period of time during a severe time of crisis.

However, the problem with it today and why it's not practical now is that we are in a massive amount of debt. Keynesian theory would work if you are in a little bit of debt or no debt at all to boost the private sector. Due to our debt problem it's not feasible.

That's why the Keynesians support higher taxes. Their belief is that government can help the economy.

Less money in the economy, yeah that is good for the economy!

lol

They believe that high taxes on the wealthy aren't harmful that bad

Oh so raising costs on job creation is good?

Nice way to frame it. In return, you oppose a more level playing field and therefore oppose broad prosperity and smart government?

Actually a larger government hurts the playing field, the higher wages outlaw jobs. Why? it is now ILELGAL to pay you under X amount of money, and you are worth Y amount of money, I now cannot hire you legally. So a "level" playing field makes it impossible to even get the the "level" wage.

It sets a floor on the price of labor. It also helps you support yourself to a minimal degree, which will help you better yourself in life and further your skills.

So how does being jobless increase skills?

It doesn't. Larger government can also have job retraining programs, reducing joblessness.

Sure they can, but people who make jobs do it better then elected officials.

I agree. I believe that government can facilitate prosperity, not create prosperity.

So a larger government that is in my face trumps private intellect?

I didn't say that.

So their regulations are better for the economy then a smart business owner?

In some cases, yes. I favor a limited amount of economic regulation. The 40 hour workweek, workers compensation, and preventing discrimination are products of regulation.

and higher cost the the business man, hence higher prices.

Yes, but we must ask ourselves, what is more important, a 20 cent higher price on our burger at Wendy's and in return we know that in return these employees are not being subjected to inhumane working hours/ conditions, or should we DESERVE those 20 cents for ourselves?

If people know what is in the burgers, it is their choice to eat it. I could care less, therefore I value personal choice over a nanny state.

What is in the burgers will not permeate well into personal choice. Most people don't know what is in the burgers, because companies may not be required to show WHAT is in the products. Before the Pure Food and Drug Acts were signed by President Roosevelt, in some cases in the meat industry, chemicals, rat feces, old products, and other products were added into the regular selling meat. This isn't healthy for people, and people may never know why they got sick.

Private sector > Public sector

In some areas. Health care = public sector financing, with private delivery. In food, public regulation with private delivery. In education, public, local delivery. In manufacturing, private delivery with minimal public regulation.

I believe if people choose to eat bad things, let them do it. The private sector is more efficient too.

I am talking about the product. Personal choice is different (which I support). I think that the food industry should be subjected to regulation by the government. In China, some Chinese producers had malamime in the milk and baby formula they were selling. Regulation, when properly used, would prevent this from happening in many cases.

I disagree, FDA is unconstitutional.

Commerce Clause:[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Necessary and Proper Clause:[The Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Put them together (the commerce clause is a power mentioned in the necessary and proper clause:"[The Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for [regulating] Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."

Therefore, the FDA is Constitutional, and serves the purpose to "create a more perfect union" and "promote the general welfare".

As you can tell, I support a role for both sectors in many areas. That is why I support Smart government, where both sectors collaborate together to create prosperity.

Smart government does not exist.

"We need smart government, a government strategy in which the government and the private sector work together to produce prosperity.

There is simply no evidence that we can succeed in the twenty-first century with an anti-government strategy. It has proved to be good politics but bad policies. Based on a philosophy ground on 'you're on your own' instead of 'we're all in this together'.

The results have yielded high income inequality, a weak economy with not enough jobs, more poverty, and a less competitive position in the world. In the real world, cooperation works better than conflict, and Americans need victories in real life."

- Bill Clinton

lol, government is not smart.

An example could be in trade. The US could have free-trade policies to promote and produce more prosperity for America, and in return the Gov't runs job-training programs to help retrain the workers who lost their jobs, and those newly retrained workers can work (ex: biotech) in biotechnology and help American businesses, and help America thrive more.

If we had free trade the government would sign nafta or whatever and leave it alone, thats not smart government, they aren't doing anything and the economy is booming.

Another example is with our manufacturing sector, with a National Manufacturing Strategy. The strategy could enforce trade laws, invest in our infrastructure, invest and simplifying job-retraining programs, expand the Research and Development tax credits, enhance our workforce, expand and make permanent clean energy manufacturing tax credits and industrial energy efficiency grants to make America lead in green job creation, and focused tax breaks to companies who use that money to create net new jobs.

Tax breaks is not smart government, it is a conservative one actually doing less, as they have to do less due to the lack of funds.

Cooperation is better than conflict. And it has been proven. Politics is not a religion. Therefore, we must base policy on the facts, not theology.

I agree with that, smart government does not exist.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

If everyone swims by themselves? No, corporations usually are large masses of people. We think that groups should compete.

You think that self-interest coupled with self-discipline is the key to success, and a moral framework upheld by the state will help people succeed. If you fail, it is because of a lack of morals or discipline. That is why right-wingers are opposed to a safety net.

You are watching michael moore often.

Actually, I haven't for a while (need to soon though)

PHD economists pro equal fields *cough krugman*cough*, are weak on econ 101. Also, only one group[s] of PHD economists have good arguments.

You didn't just say that

It woudl likely do worse due to the regulations.

Obesity would be higher, as would be health care costs. People starving would decrease. The overall diet of the city would become more heterogeneous. The industry/ groups producing corn bread would have a boom. You see, the effects are interesting, and delve into nearly all other social areas connected to this phenomena.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

It sets a floor on the price of labor. It also helps you support yourself to a minimal degree, which will help you better yourself in life and further your skills.

A price floor will create a shortage, in other words creating unemployment. Without employment they will not be able to better themselves or further their skills.

"We need smart government, a government strategy in which the government and the private sector work together to produce prosperity.

There is simply no evidence that we can succeed in the twenty-first century with an anti-government strategy. It has proved to be good politics but bad policies. Based on a philosophy ground on 'you're on your own' instead of 'we're all in this together'.

The results have yielded high income inequality, a weak economy with not enough jobs, more poverty, and a less competitive position in the world. In the real world, cooperation works better than conflict, and Americans need victories in real life."

- Bill Clinton

One giant appeal to authority.

Your point being?

It's not really an argument.

An example could be in trade. The US could have free-trade policies to promote and produce more prosperity for America, and in return the Gov't runs job-training programs to help retrain the workers who lost their jobs, and those newly retrained workers can work (ex: biotech) in biotechnology and help American businesses, and help America thrive more.

I've discussed before that these job training programs can all be run by the private sector.

Exactly how? Why would a private sector job retraining program retrain a worker who is unemployed from the auto company who shut down that factory that he worked at before the free trade agreement? You could say "they will train him and he will pay after he gets the job", but then, you have to acknowledge that the cost of loans are so high, and higher than federal loans.

Yes.

Loans are cheaper then they ever were. I also advocate other forms of financial instruments as well. As I've said before, I also advocate human capital contracts. Or the company can train the person, while he/she promises to work for the company for X number of years in return.

Cooperation is better than conflict.

Not necessary. More competition in the marketplace creates better goods and services.

True, I mean cooperation between people. We are all in this together, not everybody swims by themselves. A classic liberal/ conservative divide.

But you can't force people to act collectively. That's the divide. Such actions have been tried in communist nations and have failed miserably. People can privately volunteer or give to charity.

In terms of your "fact based policy" how can one even decipher the "facts" from "theology" when pHD economists can not agree with one another?

I forgot who said this, but some Nobel prize winner said that economics is the only category in which two winners can win a prize for holding opposing viewpoints.

Facts are sometimes evident though. An example could be with subsidies. Does a city that subsidizes corn bread overall do better than a city nearby that doesn't subsidize corn bread?

No, that's a horrible example. If it were that easy, then economist would have solved these problems long ago. It doesn't work because cetribus plerus conditions, all things being equal, have not been applied. It's a poor sample size and not even a controlled experiment. It's also a "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy.

Loans are cheaper then they ever were. I also advocate other forms of financial instruments as well. As I've said before, I also advocate human capital contracts. Or the company can train the person, while he/she promises to work for the company for X number of years in return.

Assuming that the contracts were fair and met basic working labor conditions, I would actually support this initiative heavily.

But you can't force people to act collectively. That's the divide. Such actions have been tried in communist nations and have failed miserably. People can privately volunteer or give to charity.

I am talking about politics, not the market as much per se. Politicians should use more evidence instead of talking points (for example, show that Universal HC saves lives rather than call it Government Socialized Medicine).

No, that's a horrible example. If it were that easy, then economist would have solved these problems long ago. It doesn't work because cetribus plerus conditions, all things being equal, have not been applied. It's a poor sample size and not even a controlled experiment. It's also a "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy.

I know that it is a bad example dude. Economics is extremely heard to find a clear example on the effects of an economic policy. That is why debate is common in politics, and relates to my other post. We have to relate usually to the general outcome (nations with universal health care generally have lower costs [reality: they all do]).

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

Loans are cheaper then they ever were. I also advocate other forms of financial instruments as well. As I've said before, I also advocate human capital contracts. Or the company can train the person, while he/she promises to work for the company for X number of years in return.

Assuming that the contracts were fair and met basic working labor conditions, I would actually support this initiative heavily.

But you can't force people to act collectively. That's the divide. Such actions have been tried in communist nations and have failed miserably. People can privately volunteer or give to charity.

I am talking about politics, not the market as much per se. Politicians should use more evidence instead of talking points (for example, show that Universal HC saves lives rather than call it Government Socialized Medicine).

Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself by using a talking point.

No, that's a horrible example. If it were that easy, then economist would have solved these problems long ago. It doesn't work because cetribus plerus conditions, all things being equal, have not been applied. It's a poor sample size and not even a controlled experiment. It's also a "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy.

I know that it is a bad example dude. Economics is extremely heard to find a clear example on the effects of an economic policy. That is why debate is common in politics, and relates to my other post. We have to relate usually to the general outcome (nations with universal health care generally have lower costs [reality: they all do]).

Really, all that's saying is that "United States has highest healthcare spending as cost of GDP". One can not single out "well its got to be that the US doesn't have universal healthcare". That's absurd. And really, there needs to at least be a theory behind this explanation rather then just using a bunch of correlations, and sparse data points.

Also, its not that hard to keep the price of healthcare down. Just use rationing and price controls. However, its not a system worth advocating.

Loans are cheaper then they ever were. I also advocate other forms of financial instruments as well. As I've said before, I also advocate human capital contracts. Or the company can train the person, while he/she promises to work for the company for X number of years in return.

Assuming that the contracts were fair and met basic working labor conditions, I would actually support this initiative heavily.

But you can't force people to act collectively. That's the divide. Such actions have been tried in communist nations and have failed miserably. People can privately volunteer or give to charity.

I am talking about politics, not the market as much per se. Politicians should use more evidence instead of talking points (for example, show that Universal HC saves lives rather than call it Government Socialized Medicine).

Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself by using a talking point.

An example of a talking point.

No, that's a horrible example. If it were that easy, then economist would have solved these problems long ago. It doesn't work because cetribus plerus conditions, all things being equal, have not been applied. It's a poor sample size and not even a controlled experiment. It's also a "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy.

I know that it is a bad example dude. Economics is extremely heard to find a clear example on the effects of an economic policy. That is why debate is common in politics, and relates to my other post. We have to relate usually to the general outcome (nations with universal health care generally have lower costs [reality: they all do]).

Really, all that's saying is that "United States has highest healthcare spending as cost of GDP". One can not single out "well its got to be that the US doesn't have universal healthcare". That's absurd. And really, there needs to at least be a theory behind this explanation rather then just using a bunch of correlations, and sparse data points.

My example that subsidizing corn bread led to higher health care costs originates from fact. Another example is corn subsidizing. If you do subsidize corn, companies can use corn sugar more efficiently in price than other products. Corn sugar has been proven to be more liked and addicted to so to say than other similar products. Corn sugar has been traced to cause obesity. Obesity has accounted for 27% of the increase in health care prices over the past few decades, so subsidizing corn syrup/ corn sugar leads to obesity, which places heavy demands on our health care system in our nation and puts us at numerous disadvantages for little comparative yield.

Also, its not that hard to keep the price of healthcare down. Just use rationing and price controls. However, its not a system worth advocating.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

Loans are cheaper then they ever were. I also advocate other forms of financial instruments as well. As I've said before, I also advocate human capital contracts. Or the company can train the person, while he/she promises to work for the company for X number of years in return.

Assuming that the contracts were fair and met basic working labor conditions, I would actually support this initiative heavily.

But you can't force people to act collectively. That's the divide. Such actions have been tried in communist nations and have failed miserably. People can privately volunteer or give to charity.

I am talking about politics, not the market as much per se. Politicians should use more evidence instead of talking points (for example, show that Universal HC saves lives rather than call it Government Socialized Medicine).

Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself by using a talking point.

An example of a talking point.

Talking points is when you basically say unsubstantiated statements. The statement "universal HC saves lives" is not necessarily a true statement, wasn't substantiated, and for all practical purposes would probably be a difficult statement to prove.

In reality, talking points always make sense, because few want to here a boring lecture and/or mathematics on healthcare and few people will listen.

No, that's a horrible example. If it were that easy, then economist would have solved these problems long ago. It doesn't work because cetribus plerus conditions, all things being equal, have not been applied. It's a poor sample size and not even a controlled experiment. It's also a "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy.

I know that it is a bad example dude. Economics is extremely heard to find a clear example on the effects of an economic policy. That is why debate is common in politics, and relates to my other post. We have to relate usually to the general outcome (nations with universal health care generally have lower costs [reality: they all do]).

Really, all that's saying is that "United States has highest healthcare spending as cost of GDP". One can not single out "well its got to be that the US doesn't have universal healthcare". That's absurd. And really, there needs to at least be a theory behind this explanation rather then just using a bunch of correlations, and sparse data points.

How is it a "fact"? It's difficult to prove facts in the social sciences.

Another example is corn subsidizing. If you do subsidize corn, companies can use corn sugar more efficiently in price than other products. Corn sugar has been proven to be more liked and addicted to so to say than other similar products. Corn sugar has been traced to cause obesity.

Don't know anything abut the addictivitiness. I know the corn sugar study is a correlation, not a causation.

Obesity has accounted for 27% of the increase in health care prices over the past few decades, so subsidizing corn syrup/ corn sugar leads to obesity, which places heavy demands on our health care system in our nation and puts us at numerous disadvantages for little comparative yield.

Don't know what the point of this was? You've basically demonstrated other alternative theory of why healthcare is so high in US, rather then lack of Universal healthcare.

Also, its not that hard to keep the price of healthcare down. Just use rationing and price controls. However, its not a system worth advocating.

I never said I was good at economics, but Krugman is the worst economist out of the bunch of economists. And not nessacarily the worst, just the least convincing.

Hey hey hey WATCH IT NOW... he got a Nobel prize in Economics, his B.A. in Economics at Yale, and his PhD in Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

Talking points is when you basically say unsubstantiated statements. The statement "universal HC saves lives" is not necessarily a true statement, wasn't substantiated, and for all practical purposes would probably be a difficult statement to prove.

In reality, talking points always make sense, because few want to here a boring lecture and/or mathematics on healthcare and few people will listen.

I agree that I was not substantiating that statement adequately.

Don't know what the point of this was? You've basically demonstrated other alternative theory of why healthcare is so high in US, rather then lack of Universal healthcare.

I drifted away from my original argument about universal healthcare, my apology.

The fact the in Single-Payer, Universal Health care relies on only one central administration, eliminates the need for all the massive needs of paperwork transfer, billing complications, and eliminates the need of sorting out all the thousands of providers to find the proper company to bill. A Single-Payer system would be fully electronic, so it would be more efficient. Yet, since the information would be kept personal between a patient and a doctor, and only the billing sent to the government, it would be confidential. With a large economy of scale, the system would be much cheaper by massively simplifying the system, removing the need of marketing, profits (for the insurance companies), and would massively cut administrative costs. By having a Single-Payer system, that is streamlined, confidential, yet electronic, this would save bundles of money. The fully electronic system has been determined to save possibly $77.8 billion annually. [1] The simple system of Single Payer would save about a determined $300-400 billion or more per year, [2] [3] [4] much more than enough to cover all of the uninsured with quality, comprehensive care. With the hundreds of billions in savings, the savings could be returned back to individuals and businesses.

Our current system leaves 45,000 to die each year due to under insurance or being uninsured. [5] A Universal, national health care system leaves none to this fate.

If a research hub was created where analysts determined which treatments worked best, and doctors used the electronic information to decide better what to prescribe, Peter Orszag (head of the CBO) said this would result in a significant reduction in health care costs. [6] Britain has a similar system, called NICE.

Covering the American people and uninsured is affordable. Keeping the private health insurance system intact is not.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

PHD economists pro equal fields *cough krugman*cough*, are weak on econ 101. Also, only one group[s] of PHD economists have good arguments.

Facts don't suddenly become opinions just because they fail to support the rhetoric you're using to mislead the American people.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan